Talk:American Football (1999 album)

American Football (1999 album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 28, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

Post-hardcore High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Post-hardcore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of post-hardcore and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Post-hardcoreWikipedia:WikiProject Post-hardcoreTemplate:WikiProject Post-hardcorePost-hardcore
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

extra column in track listing

is the extra column in track listing really necessary? if it's important and backed up by several reliable sources, then keep around the info but maybe move it to somewhere else? Nucg5040 (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how it stayed for so long. Skyshifter ^talk 15:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. 49p (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:American Football (1999 album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: LunaEclipse (talk · contribs) 18:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: 49p (talk · contribs) 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll do this as it shouldn't take long. Most of this seems to be fine at a glance.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I changed some stuff here and there. All issues were really minor, mostly just rewording and fixing punctuation.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Checked all references. All look fine.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Removed some minor sentences that were a bit off topic and did not help, other than that it was fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No clear edit warring or anything changing significantly other than recent changes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One non-free image.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All seem relevant, The two free images could use a little bit of more description (per WP:CAP#3 to describe the relevancy), but is sufficient enough.
	7. Overall assessment.

@LunaEclipse:, this article seems to be pretty good and already well into detail. There's really just only a couple (really one big) issues with it to push it in GA.

Issues

The article currently jumps between timelines, making it difficult to follow a linear narrative. For instance, it begins by discussing the original 1999 release, then shifts to a 2004 acoustic version and reissue. It then references a 2019 quote about the album's popularity. Later, the section on the artwork recounts events from 1999 while also mentioning its later significance. Finally, the reception of the album, including its initial reviews, is introduced. Granted, I did move some of these sections so it would flow a bit better, but these issues still persists. To enhance clarity, I recommend reorganizing the content to follow a more chronological structure where feasible. A potential solution would be to consolidate all post-release legacy elements into a dedicated "Legacy" section. Alternatively, a combined section titled "Reception and Legacy" could work, encompassing both the initial reviews from 1999 and later developments, such as reissues and its growing influence over time. I recommend you look on other articles on how they tackle "later" fame like Shmap'n Shmazz, Spiderland, or Pinkerton (album).
- Could merging the "Release" and "Artwork" sections work? 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 16:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done
- We also need more information on how it gained cult status. There is only one sentence stating specifically on how it got it (the quote in Release). If the way of cult status was truly only by word of mouth, it should be at least expanded more in-depth.
  - Done
- Also LP1 is arguably very very influential. There should be a couple of sentences about the influence on the genre.
  - Done
Image captions could be more detailed (see 6b)
- Done
Explain the new 2024 remaster and covers that just came out. Doesn't really need to be in detail but it should be maybe at the end of the reissue section
- Done

Comments

Jazz-fusion seems to be a far stretch in my opinion, the review just say "emo-jazz hybrid". So while it *could* be jazz-fusion per that AllMusic review, I feel like it's stating more of an influence if anything (we also already state there is jazz influence, due to Lamos being Jazz).
- Removed
No midwest emo tag? Pretty sure there has to be a source for that.
- Dug deep and found nothing.
  - Last I checked, Midwest emo is a localized musical scene and not actually a genre of music anyway. Kind of like D.C. hardcore, etc. mftp dan ^oops 17:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well this made me realize there might be a bigger problem here. I'm sure you know Midwest emo can also refer to the aesthetics that are presented like in this album. So if a band in California tries to make some album like this, often times they would be called "Midwest emo" and this surely happens a lot. Hell, people call bands like Sunny Day Real Estate "pioneers" of Midwest emo (the band is far from the midwest). But the problem is that are we going to accept that type of definition? The article Midwest emo says that it's both a scene and a genre, so we probably need get some consensus here. Plus, unrelated really, we do list scenes like East Coast hip-hop in hip-hop articles. Either way, I dont really care for this article. 49p (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely optionally, but I believe there is enough reviews from original and reissues that you could theoretically split up two section about it's original reception and its later reception. Articles like Autobahn (album), Spiderland, or Pinkerton (album) do this. This is honestly just a comment in case there are plans for expansion after this GAN, this could be a first action. No need to actually do this.
- Done This kinda helped with the chronological issues LOL
There is no audio file, this is not needed but could be useful if you need to expand on the idea of capturing the "feels" of the album.

If you fix the issue whenever, I would be willing to put this as a Pass. Everything else seems to be fine

@49p: I have addressed your comments (for real this time). 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll look into this in the next couple days but this should be most likely a pass at this point. 49p (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added a drive-by comment. Historically, I had some involvement with the article. Question - is the American Football House's official website acceptably reliable? There is some useful content I think would be useful for historical context that I think ought to be included in the article, if the source in question is acceptable in a GA. mftp dan ^oops 17:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MFTP Dan, the house is owned by American Football and Polyvinyl, citing the website would be self-serving. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 11:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear, does "self-serving" mean "self-published", and if so, could WP:ABOUTSELF apply?

Additionally, these two sources cited on the House's article include information on how although the band members didn't live at the house, Chris Strong did, which is contextually significant. [1] [2] I'm aware the first one might be pushing it, as it's a student newspaper, but it appears to be a professionally-done interview with Mike Kinsella. mftp dan ^oops 14:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MFTP Dan, "self-serving" as in "self-promotional". — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 14:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as promotional so much as simply a primary source. In certain contexts, I agree, it could be promotional dependent on how you write the cited content, but see, it wasn't owned by AF and Poly until recently. My thoughts were that it could be used to note that the house was owned by Viktor Krauss at the time, who rented it to students. Were it not for the notability of the owner I wouldn't care who owned it. [3] Either way, not a big deal if it is or isn't included, but I'd encourage it. mftp dan ^oops 14:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I swear I replied 2 days ago but I'm back after a bad migraine. I made a pretty long paragraph on it but now apparently it's gone but really in short: it's a primary source and it's ok. Affiliated (somewhat) with AF and Poly, but it is rather to inform and not to promote. Plus the notability of the house is already presented with other sources, so it's fine to cite it. Of course, use a better source and respect WP:PRIMARY whenever you can but I don't think you're getting historical info elsewhere. 49p (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

49p, I don't want to alarm you, but it has been 14 days since you posted this reply. Do you think this article is a pass or a fail? — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 21:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty bad busy week for me lol, got more stuff back to back + college. It is a "pass". The only reason I haven't passed it is reviewing if I missed something or whatnot. I been looking at it and I should (hopefully) pass this today or tomorrow. The only concerning one I saw that I mightve missed is like keeping citation format throughout the same (minor issue really, this happens with the physicals sources where it's either bare refs or using Template:Sfn). 49p (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 15:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the guitar tracks in American Football's American Football are tripled?

Source: https://www.guitarworld.com/features/mike-kinsella-american-football-owen

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Fagoppositionens Sammenslutning

Improved to Good Article status by LunaEclipse (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 16 past nominations.

💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 21:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

GA recent enough. Article long enough, well sourced, and with appropriate fair-use image. Hook is cited adequately but I would appreciate the article doing something to explain what "tripled" means in this context. Otherwise, looks good. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Pbritti, ALT1: ... that American Football's American Football was a side project and never meant to be an influential album?
- (source: [4] and Magnuson, Mike (February 2000). "Pickup Game: It Takes a Four-Track, a Moody Trumpet, and a Lot of Jokes to Play American Football". CMJ New Music Monthly (78). CMJ Network, Inc. ISSN 1074-6978) 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 22:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @LunaEclipse: Do you mind quoting the passage from the cited source that verifies that this was a "side project"? I can't find a statement that does so when I read through it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Pbritti: [5]: "The trio never let the project graduate out of a 'side project,' and they argue that it’s still that." 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 19:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - @LunaEclipse: Please accept my apologies—I was reading the entirely wrong reference, so no wonder I couldn't source the claim. Everything looks great! As an aside, I am a fan of the album and it's really great to see that this article has been improved. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]